Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

Nope, Fox Sports Houston was NOT a standalone channel. Fox Sports Houston aired Fox Sports SW programming except when a Houston team was playing, and then they split the feeds temporarily.

In fact, when I switched from Dish to D*, Dish was only part-timing FSN-H during events, and carrying FSN-SW the rest of the time. (Really sucked because it seemed like the Houston feed changed channel numbers every other day)

(The easiest way to tell that they were the same channel was the advertising for local Dallas businesses that ran during things like college football games on the supposed "Fox Sports Houston" channel. I really hate the Dallas Jewelery Exchange commercial.)

Document for me that D* is paying Fox less for FSN-SW now than they were paying for FSN-SW plus the part-time FSN-H, and I'll withdraw my argument. And no, D* can't stop carrying FSN-SW in Houston because of the college sports packages that FSN has.

BTW, what brought me back here was the SBJ story that sdk linked...excellent read on this topic.

Incorrect. Directv aired it as a part time channel. That doesn't mean it was actually a part time channel. Fox Sports Houston was very much a full time channel for customers of other providers. It becames\ a 24/7 Channel in 2009.

I dont need to document that D* is paying Fox less for Fox Sports SW. Again - nothing has changed for Fox Sports Southwest, and Fox Sports Houston was replaced with Fox Sports New Orleans which airs Hornets games. And as i also mentioned earlier - that's not the way the deal works with Fox and Directv. the RSN are included in the package of FOX Channels that Directv bought - including FX, Fox Soccer, Speed, Nat Geo, Nat Geo Wild, Fox College Sports, Fuel, FMC, and all your favorite Fox Sports Channels.

If the Los Angeles mo:del proves successful, the tremors could be felt throughout the country as other big markets that have multiple professional and college sports teams give it a try. Some even say it could change the entire pay-TV system.

“I’m worried that it could become a trend in other markets,” said Bob Wilson, the top programming executive at Cox Communications. “Everybody’s watching the Lakers and the Dodgers to see what the market will absorb. We’ve been on this path for a long time now. We all are wondering where the breaking point is.”

Oh my...another person who has the audacity to contemplate something that could happen in the future. Peeps who like to tell us what we can and cannot think about around here will not be happy!

Dang. I thought with it being Wednesday, Sixto would have posted TWCSN in full time test...

I thought they already were in full time test, just not in the conventional way.

Though I was hoping, "against hope" obviously, it might per chance go live this morning with a formal announcement of an agreement later on today.

But nah ... outside the test feeds, still a whole lot'a noth'in go'in on with DIRECTV on the all news fronts I can see except their beyond sickening "in negotiations." canned responses. :icon_lame

Looks like the Jazz game tonight is headed down the tubes now.

Very disappointed with DIRECTV at this point I have to admit.

However, still under some 18 months to go on my commitment and a lot of free or heavily discounted equipment here (5 HD-DVRs, with one an HR34) shared by three family members, so what's there to really do but wait?

For the good of all of us, I hope the TWC Lakers channel and the PAC 12 networks fall flat on their faces.

Both of those now have enough coverage among providers to survive. Pac-12 has Dish, TWC Sportsnet has U-verse, Cox, FIOS, Charter, Brighthouse.... and with that it has 95% of the Lakers market covered, and in MANY cases a potential Dish or DirecTV customer can CHOOSE between a cable based TV service, or a IPTV/telco based TV service....

These channels have passed the "point of no return", they will continue to exist regardless of DirecTV coverage is there or not.

Also, the survivability of TWC Sportsnet shouldn't even be in question, given that TWC owns BOTH the channel, AND the largest carrier in the Los Angeles area. And they have a 20 year deal.

[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

However, still under some 18 months to go on my commitment and a lot of free or heavily discounted equipment here (5 HD-DVRs, with one an HR34) shared by three family members, so what's there to really do but wait?

Indeed. Some of us live in rural areas so there is no cable to switch to, no broadband to stream, no radio to listen to. Even if Dish got the channel, I would lose all my programming on my 2Tb external drive if I switched, so I'm basically at DirecTv's mercy...

Indeed. Some of us live in rural areas so there is no cable to switch to, no broadband to stream, no radio to listen to. Even if Dish got the channel, I would lose all my programming on my 2Tb external drive if I switched, so I'm basically at DirecTv's mercy...

Well.... it depends. TWC Sportsnet is going to want (and is on all other systems) to be in the cheapest package available (or the next-up cheapest).

For Dish, that would be America's 120, which as a new customer you can get for $24.95. With fees, taxes, and 1 receiver your monthly bill will probably be $35.

Those who CAN get cable or U-verse/FIOS, can probably get a similar package with 1 receiver. If DirecTV and TWC both stay as stubborn as they are, one could ask themselves the question:

Is being able to watch the Lakers worth an additional $35 a month?

If the answer is NO, you are indeed screwed. If you can afford and are willing to pay.... you may be able to keep DirecTV, and get a second provider installed. If you ARE able to get cable, you can most likely go month-to-month, and you don't have to get a Dish Network dish installed on your roof. Both U-verse and TWC have really good deals out right now.

[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

Directv needs to just get it's act together and add TWC Sportsnet. It's a shame they can't make a deal with those networks and it's not right for customers in LA to be without those channels. Stop being cheap and add the channel.

Well.... it depends. TWC Sportsnet is going to want (and is on all other systems) to be in the cheapest package available (or the next-up cheapest).

For Dish, that would be America's 120, which as a new customer you can get for $24.95. With fees, taxes, and 1 receiver your monthly bill will probably be $35.

Those who CAN get cable or U-verse/FIOS, can probably get a similar package with 1 receiver. If DirecTV and TWC both stay as stubborn as they are, one could ask themselves the question:

Is being able to watch the Lakers worth an additional $35 a month?

If the answer is NO, you are indeed screwed. If you can afford and are willing to pay.... you may be able to keep DirecTV, and get a second provider installed. If you ARE able to get cable, you can most likely go month-to-month, and you don't have to get a Dish Network dish installed on your roof. Both U-verse and TWC have really good deals out right now.

And the answer has to be "NO" unfortunately.

I'm in a TWC area, and in fact have their internet service costing $53.00 a month. There's a mortgage to pay and utilities and the DIRECTV bill is already ~$150.00 a month even with a grandfathered Premiere package and within a 24 month free HD access period.

So we can't afford a second provider, plus the three DIRECTV users in the family are actually all adults sharing the bills here with the TVs in their bedrooms. Therefore the ethical rule here is if all three cannot enjoy the Lakers on TV right now, none of us do. So it would have to be a three box setup minimum from TWC.

The Lakers are battling the Utah Jazz on Wednesday night on Time Warner Cable's new regional sports channel SportsNet, but if DirecTV subscribers want to follow the action they'll either have to visit a bar that's showing the game or go old school and listen to the radio.

And it may be that way for awhile.

Speaking with Wall Street analysts and investors Tuesday about the satellite broadcaster's third-quarter results, DirecTV Chief Executive Mike White did not sound optimistic, but rather someone trying to draw a line in the sand.

While White said DirecTV continues to have "active discussions" with Time Warner Cable about carrying SportsNet and its Spanish-language companion Deportes, he also blasted the rising cost of programming, particularly for sports.

"Everybody wants a new channel and they want to stick it into the bundle and it's not right," White told analysts.

That seemed to be aimed right at Time Warner Cable, which acquired the rights to the Lakers so it could launch SportsNet and now wants other distributors to put it on their most widely distributed programming packages.

DirecTV has asked if it could offer SportsNet on a specialty tier with similar channels that subscribers would have to request and pay extra for, an offer Time Warner Cable rejected. Time Warner Cable is seeking as much as $3.95 per month, per subscriber for SportsNet, according to people familiar with the matter.

Putting SportsNet on DirecTV's broadest package of channels is "taxing most of our customers who wouldn't be willing to pay for that content," White said. Cox Cable, which also has a large customer base in Southern California, took a similar stand until agreeing to a deal with Time Warner Cable a few days ago.

Other distributors carrying SportsNet include Verizon Fios, Charter Communications and AT&T U-Verse. Like DirecTV, satellite broadcaster Dish Network has yet to reach an agreement with Time Warner Cable.

White went on to say that the entire regional sports network structure is "broken." White is not alone in his thinking. Other distributors, including, ironically, Time Warner Cable, have often complained about regional sports networks, which are very expensive to carry.

"I think we're going to continue to see very, very tough discussions by all distributors with content providers, to try and mitigate these outrageous cost increases that are unaffordable to the average customer," White said.

Yep.... from what I read, this is going the way of PAC12. They probably did the calculations, and if the LOWEST number that TWC is willing to accept will cost them MORE per year then the number of customers they expect to lose, there is absolutely no reason to get the channel.

Sportsbars outside of a cable zone, AT&T U-verse zone, or Verizon FIOS zone.... will have a problem though.

They probably also compare the "Give me lakers or else I switch" tweets/facebook posts to the actual number of people that call to cancel.... and keep working the numbers.

I suspect most people will wait it out longer. They go watch it at friends/family with cable, they go to a sportsbar and get a pint of beer, but won't cancel.

When I do a twitter search I see a lot of "I will cancel" threats but not a lot of "I have cancelled" tweets. People aren't willing to put their money where their mouth is.... and quite frankly, understandably so. And as such, DirecTV wins. The wife who thinks it is ridiculous to switch over sports wins. TWC Sportsnet loses.

It will get REALLY interesting if Dish cuts a deal.

[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

Directv needs to just get it's act together and add TWC Sportsnet. It's a shame they can't make a deal with those networks and it's not right for customers in LA to be without those channels. Stop being cheap and add the channel.

Say it loud.

I can understand if no other carrier had TWSN. Clearly DIRECTV is the issue.

"taxing most of our customers who wouldn't be willing to pay for that content," says Mike White. He really needs to stop talking out of both sides of his mouth. There are so many channels we all pay for that we never watch. We mostly don't complain because we know there's a market for them, and paying for channels we don't watch, helps keep the price down for the channels we do watch.
This attitude will eventually drive subs away from D* and when they leave, our fees will go up because there will be less subs to share the costs.

Problem is the cable companies that signed on to TWC - lakers are in the lakers market or very near. So it makes sense to have the channel. A majority of the subs prob want to see the lakers

DirecTV is nationwide and the ratio of laker fans to subscribers is much lower. So there are fewer subs who want to watch the lakers. Why should I have to pay (lower level package requirement for TWS) ?

Problem is the cable companies that signed on to TWC - lakers are in the lakers market or very near. So it makes sense to have the channel. A majority of the subs prob want to see the lakers

DirecTV is nationwide and the ratio of laker fans to subscribers is much lower. So there are fewer subs who want to watch the lakers. Why should I have to pay (lower level package requirement for TWS) ?

Don't agree with that part at all.

Directv's customer base in LA alone is approximately 1.7 million.Throw in the rest of SoCal, OC, San Diego, Las Vegas, Hawaii, and the central parts of Cali.

That's easily close to 4 million subs in the Lakers DMA zone.

There have been a lot of reports saying that the D* customers in the not direct LA market would get charged a lower rate to carry the channel.

Problem is the cable companies that signed on to TWC - lakers are in the lakers market or very near. So it makes sense to have the channel. A majority of the subs prob want to see the lakers

DirecTV is nationwide and the ratio of laker fans to subscribers is much lower. So there are fewer subs who want to watch the lakers. Why should I have to pay (lower level package requirement for TWS) ?

We're all paying for channels we don't watch. Just the nature of the business.